International Law

Crime doesn't pay

By John Hirst

Gordon Brown talks about the responsibilities of prisoners, but in refusing to increase their measly allowance, he's shirking his own

Well done Gordon Brown for stepping in to ensure that people in prison are denied any chance of the "pay rise" that had been recommended by senior Prison Service managers. After all, as one of the prison officer's leaders told us last week, life in prison is so good none of the lags want to escape.

What with Sky television in their cells, free telephones, and every morning a slap-up full English breakfast in bed, how dare anybody consider rewarding these miscreants with an extra £1.50 a week (the bulk of which no doubt would have been spent on even more indulgences from the prison luxury items shop)? As the prime minister told the Today programme: "There have got to be rights. But there have also got to be responsibilities, and it's the responsibilities of prisoners that I'm interested in."

Quite right too. The rise, had it gone ahead, would have taken the average amount of money made available to prisoners who work from £4.00 per week to £5.50 per week. Unemployed prisoners would have received £4.00 instead of the current £2.50. Thankfully, thanks to Brown's intervention, the nation's prisoner population will remain in penury for the forseeable future. Good enough.

Actually it is not good enough. The prime minister's decision to personally veto the rise in prisoner allowances, (for the pitiable amount of money that people in prison receive from the prison authorities could never seriously be called "pay") - was cheap and childish. This would have been the first increase in prisoner monies in 10 years.

Brown was clearly influenced by the hysterical rantings of Prison Officers' Association spokesman Glyn Travis last week, (in case anyone missed it, it was he who revealed to the world at large that prisoners were now enjoying the "cushy" life and did not want to escape, though how Travis would know what the reality of prison life is from the point of view of a prisoner is a mystery.) Brown justified his decision by saying that prisoners had to have "responsibilities." But I think he is missing the point here. Putting the onus on prisoners to demonstrate "responsibility" while the state shies away from meeting its own responsibilities to those it incarcerates just breeds resentment and antipathy.

We want prisoners to work and to show willing. But if we are not prepared to reward their efforts how can we truly expect them to want to engage with the system?

On the outside, you do a day's work and you get a day's pay. Responsibility is shared by employer and employee. On the inside, if you have a job, you do around six to eight hours work in a day and you receive less than two pounds and perhaps as little as a pound. Now how on earth does such a situation encourage any kind of "responsibility"?

In truth, all paying a pittance encourages is skiving, ducking and diving. Brown says he will review the money given to prisoners as part of their "contract" for good behaviour.

In other words, if they behave well and prove they are worthy of it, they may indeed receive their measly extra £1.50 per week. Now I know that Brown is struggling in the popularity stakes - but hammering the nation's already battered and bruised prisoner population in order to glean back a point or two in the opinion polls was about as mean-spirited as it gets.

Full post as published by prisonlawinsideout on April 30, 2008 (boomark / email).